[Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?

Sam Cuttriss teanau at gmail.com
Wed May 13 13:03:25 EDT 2015


Where procedural modeling is advantageous the current tools are good, but
it comes at the expense of productivity for unique one off forms.

as a cheesy analogy i feel like houdini requires me to design a massive
injection molding factory when all i want to do is run some MDF through a
band saw.
There are circumstances where either approach is appropriate, but currently
the latter is not even being pursued, I see this as a massive weakness.

Im just an individual using the indie product in my spare time, so my views
may differ from the target market.
I figure i should mention them on the off chance that others share my view.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:10 PM, <jim at rutherfordfx.com> wrote:

> Honestly..I model everything in Houdini and much prefer it to
> Maya...Sure I'll use modo when I just want to bash something out
> quickly...I don't get the bad rap people give Houdini over
> modeling...modeling in softimage annoyed the crap out of me but maybe I
> didn't give it a chance.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?
> From: Sam Cuttriss <teanau at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, May 12, 2015 5:20 pm
> To: sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>
> Totally valid, I may be totally out of line expecting this of houdini.
>
> I view modeling as the fundamental core of 3d, from which an apps
> specialisation builds upon.
> Without robust / efficient modeling features houdini may be limiting
> itself
> to very large pipelines?
> vs individuals and small shops trying to get a wide variety of tasks
> done
> quickly.
>
> that may be a conscious strategic decision, but as (one of many it
> seems)
> ICE savvy softimage veterans looking for a home, this is the biggest
> issue
> i face.
>
> _sam
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:
>
> > There are plenty of other modelling apps that do a great job of
> > destructive poly modelling, but really only one (Houdini) that does a
> > great job of procedural modelling. Why not just let your 'black box
> > edit SOP' be a file SOP, and continue it on in another app more suited
> > to the job? IMO there's nothing wrong with using a mix of tools, using
> > the best one suited to the task at hand. I'm happy to let Houdini be
> > Houdini, and let SideFX concentrate on making awesome procedural
> > modelling, because they're the only people who are!
> >
> > On 13 May 2015 at 08:48, Sam Cuttriss <teanau at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, im looking for a very fast/ very stupid sandbox to model without
> the
> > > benefits / burden of proceduralism.
> > > I want the sandbox to prioritise efficiency and ergonomics, reducing
> > clicks
> > > to the absolute minimum, eliminating workflow dependence upon commands
> /
> > > attribute wrangling /
> > > I would even prefer primary interactive properties to be represented in
> > the
> > > viewport at the site the modification will manifest using context
> > sensitive
> > > handles / parameters whenever possible.
> > > Multiple sticky keys acting simultaneously were very successfully
> > > implemented in softimage reducing what could be 10 or more sequential
> > steps
> > > to a couple of modified mouse clicks.
> > >
> > > I realise what im asking for is !Houdini
> > > and i recognise the output geometry of such an arrangement would
> probably
> > > eliminate any procedural modification opportunities.
> > >
> > > but im more than willing to give that up to model quickly and
> > expressively.
> > >
> > > besides, it seems like a great opportunity to capture the hearts and
> > minds
> > > of autodesk refugees.
> > > _sam
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jordi Bares Dominguez <
> > > jordibares at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think we should argue the two variants we encounter
> > >>
> > >> - Procedural modelling tasks : nodes, for sure (booleans, architecture
> > >> stuff, etc…)
> > >>
> > >> - Normal modelling tasks (which is 90% of the cases) : it has to be
> one
> > >> too, it is a destructive process by nature and thus trying to
> shoehorne
> > it
> > >> onto a procedural paradigm gives you a very cumbersome workflow.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If you try to build it all with very granular tools we will end up in
> > the
> > >> same situation we are in, almost nobody uses it.
> > >>
> > >> jb
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > On 12 May 2015, at 10:49, Andy Nicholas <andy at andynicholas.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > The thing is, individual SOPs are great, and yes, we should
> definitely
> > >> have that list that Srecko put down, but the fact is that to
> > >> (non-procedural) modellers, having to put down SOPs, create groups,
> > >> attributes, etc. breaks the modelling workflow and can quickly kill a
> > >> moment of inspiration while they look up VEX syntax for the umpteenth
> > time
> > >> ;)
> > >> >
> > >> > So yes, I’d say that an uber editing SOP is still very much
> necessary.
> > >> Maybe it has a button which says “Make SOP network” to automatically
> > >> creates a network based on what you’ve just done. That would be
> awesome,
> > >> although it would be a tough challenge for SideFX to define the
> > heuristics
> > >> of how it would do that.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> If one wants an UBER modeling node it's easy enough to just create
> an
> > >> OTL
> > >> >> yourself :)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Hehe! Careful, someone might think you’re being serious ;)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> On 12 May 2015, at 07:40, Ron Schab <ron.schab at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Agreed with most of above.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If one wants an UBER modeling node it's easy enough to just create
> an
> > >> OTL
> > >> >> yourself :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I actually love the procedural node trees. It it one of the many
> > >> reasons I
> > >> >> prefer Houdini.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The cookie-SOP highly depends on mesh resolution amongst other
> things
> > >> that
> > >> >> i.e. Cinema doesn't needs in order to work.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> beers
> > >> >> Ron
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Srecko Micic <
> > srecko.micic at gmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> I do not see much benefits of Uber tool, at least if it works like
> > Edit
> > >> >>> Node in 3dsMax. I like to be able to go back and tweak nodes
> > later,or
> > >> >>> combine them in one tool, that is why I love Houdini :D
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> What I would like to have is more and better implemented (with
> more
> > >> >>> options) SOPs.
> > >> >>> - For example better Bevel sop that works like Cinema4D.
> > >> >>> - Slide edge/vertices along edge, surface ....
> > >> >>> - Snapping on object surface not just vertices - Retopology
> > >> >>> - Poly bridge.
> > >> >>> - Boolean improved, I find this rarely works, but I think it is
> > >> important
> > >> >>> for Houdini to have this implemented as better as possible.
> > >> >>> - More curve options (easy to round corners, offset, combine them
> > etc),
> > >> >>> add splines as in 3dsMax, this is also important for Houdini
> > because of
> > >> >>> it’s procedural approach.
> > >> >>> - Something like Backdrop in Modo, much easier to work with
> > reference
> > >> >>> images than what we have now (transparent, overlay, easy to scale,
> > >> rotate,
> > >> >>> translate).
> > >> >>> - More NURBS tools.
> > >> >>> - Matcaps implemented
> > >> >>> - Enhance DXF and EPS/AI importers
> > >> >>> - Small modelling helpers, like make circle from selected faces
> etc.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Srecko Micic
> > >> >>> 3D Generalist
> > >> >>> -------------------------------------------
> > >> >>> Skype: srecko.micic
> > >> >>> Email: srecko.micic at gmail.com
> > >> >>> http://sreckom.webworkman.com
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>> On May 12, 2015, at 15:22, Jordan Walsh <
> jordan.h.walsh at gmail.com>
> > >> >>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> It would be really nice to have an UBER modeling node like an
> edit
> > >> node
> > >> >>> but
> > >> >>>> with all the modeing tools built in, like divide, add, extrude
> etc
> > for
> > >> >>>> organic modeling and also keeping the tools in their normal node
> > for
> > >> for
> > >> >>>> procedural setups.
> > >> >>>> A node that has the same functionality as 3dsMax's Edit Poly
> > modifier
> > >> >>> would
> > >> >>>> be awesome. It is a massive pain to have a giant string of nodes
> > for
> > >> some
> > >> >>>> modelling tasks.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Jordan
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> PS, I do love using an Add SOP to remove prims ;)
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM, François Duchesneau <
> > >> sidefx at trinix.ca>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>> I wonder if the goal here is not to be able to set absolute
> value
> > in
> > >> a
> > >> >>> non
> > >> >>>>> procedural way. My understanding is while you're editing your
> > points
> > >> >>>>> sometimes you want to say the selected ones go to 10 in Y and
> then
> > >> the
> > >> >>> next
> > >> >>>>> selection go 5 in X, in architecture modeling for example.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> The last thing you want is have an AttribWrangle and then
> > conntinue
> > >> your
> > >> >>>>> editing with another Edit Sop. If the Edit Sop had a toggle for
> > World
> > >> >>> Space
> > >> >>>>> editing then you could use switch from one style to the other
> for
> > the
> > >> >>>>> following operation.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Thanks
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Francois
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> Also, if you want something as specific as setting the x
> > component of
> > >> >>> the
> > >> >>>>>> P attribute to 10, it doesn't seem like a giant leap to say
> @P.x
> > =
> > >> 10;
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > >> >>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > >> >>>>>
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > >> >>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > >> >>>>
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> _______________________________________________
> > >> >>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > >> >>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > >> >>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > >> >>>
> > >> >> _______________________________________________
> > >> >> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > >> >> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > >> >> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > >> >
> > >> > _______________________________________________
> > >> > Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > >> > Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > >> > https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > >> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > >> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > > Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > > https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> > Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> > https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> _______________________________________________
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>



More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list